Bad? Or not? (But I think I already know...)

Tina Holmboe wrote:

But the bottom line is really elsewhere: navigation inside the
document is not an UA task; but a document task.

That would the bottom line of people who:
- Redesign the scroll-bar in documents (redesign, or simply hide it)
- Use Flash to deliver an "optimized" document-navigation interface
- Well yes, and for those who offer "top to document" links... because
those are _usually_ (you seem to be an exception) the same people who
open links in new windows, tell people that scrolling is bad, etc.
- etc.

But "start of document" not might be the first byte in what happens
to be a file. That may be a common use, just as it may be common to
call it "top of page".

Yes. And you know what? Every document has a start*. So it's completely
redundant to point to it. Authors should not include redundant
information.

*And end. And middle. Do you want to point to those too?

I consider "start of document" to be a matter of internal navigation
in a document; and something that an author might want to provide
for the reader. It enhances accessibility - to some; like
everything else.

No. "Everything else" is mostly not an issue where some people tell it
decreases their accessibility because it clutters the page, looks silly
in printing, etc.

_Ideally_, link semantics are working in a way that when you remove the
linking feature, the text flow will stay intact. E.g. if I write:
"The painter Leonardo was doing paintings in the Renaissance..."
-> then I can make links of "Leonardo", "Paintings", and "Renaissance".
But the sentence makes sense without the links as well.

In how far does "Beginning of document" make sense without being a
link? It doesn't.

And to take a linked table-of-content at the beginning of the page
(which has been used as analogy): Yes, it does make sense without being
linked. It's a readable introduction that doesn't need to be clicked on
to offer value.

But I disagree in that "beginning of document" or "start of
document" is related to the rendering.

It's not directly, you're right, but it's mentioning a formal/
structural issue instead of a contentual one. In other words it's
mentioning information inherent in the document transmitted; it's
redundant (even a single "Top" link, even though there's usually dozens
of them once the concept is applied, which shows how broken it is)...
and therefore must be handled by a solid interface.

My bottom-line: let the user interface handle what it can (and most
commonly does, too). And don't clutter the document with "Beginning of
document"-whatever-you-may-call-them links.

Consider a document which starts with navigation. A link on the top
- which I have been told is bad for accessibility too - gives the
user the means to skip over the navigation (this is GREAT on PDAs
and voice browsers) and get to the main content.

You get halfway through the document, and want to go to the top.
You press "Home" - assuming you have one, the UA has the function,
and soforth - and you end up ... above the navigation. Which isn't
where you wanted to go.

Funny. I press my back-key and it takes me exactly to where I want to
be. To the navigation at the top of the document, just to the point
where I scrolled down. That's Internet Explorer, not the most exotic
browser out there. I think you're constructing problems where there are
none to support your argument for a need of "Beginning"-links.


--
Google Blogoscoped
http://blog.outer-court.com

"Tina Holmboe" <tina (AT) greytower (DOT) net> wrote

According to you I should just press the "Home" button on the keyboard
instead, huh ? Or is this simply such an esoteric, or specialized, way
of accessing the web that it isn't a good example ?

According to me?

Hey, I'm firmly ensconsed on the fence here, Tina...!

Chris
[...sticking his head back below the parapet again]